conworldfandomcom-20200222-history
Talk:Future World
This is the discussion page for Future World. If you have ideas or concerns or anything else, ask and discuss here. *See here for chat archive Information Before asking questions, be sure to review the Rules of Future World. For each topic or question, create a new heading, to keep things organized. Be sure to sign your name by placing four tildes (~) in a row at the end of what you posted. Cause for American split up Now Sunkist and I have been talking about the splitting up of the United States, the reasons behind and all that goes along, and came to a compromise. Now, as always, we're voting on it, and everyone else has the liberty to submit their own proposals. -Signed by Warmonkey (talk • ) 23:44, January 14, 2013 (UTC) SWM/Sunkist proposal *During the Clinton Administration, several elements (excluding the President) plot a terrorist attack on American soil, to justify an open-ended invasion of the Middle East. About this time, the initial stages of framing Iraq for possessing WMDs are taking place. *George W. Bush narrowly defeats Al Gore in the presidential election, leading the conspirators (of which Bush is a principle element) to have a sigh of relief. All their plans depended on Bush winning. *11 September, 2001: terrorists fly planes into the World Trade Center as a cover. In reality, bombs planted within the towers during the previous weeks are detonated to have the towers collapse onto themselves without unnecessary damage to nearby property. **A Tomahawk missile fired from a missile cruiser in Norfolk, Virginia, hits the Pentagon, causing much less damage than expected. **The FBI quickly confiscates any CCTV evidence of a missile hitting the building from neighboring plots. They also plant at least two dozen "witnesses" to claim they saw a plane hitting the Pentagon. *The long-brewing USA PATRIOT Act is signed into law. *A junior yet bright CIA-analyst finds evidence corresponding with a conspiracy to have terror attacks take place on American soil. His superiors tell him to ignore it. The analyst finds most of the evidence is in accordance with what the 9/11 Truth Movement is claiming. He slowly begins leaking the evidence. *Afghanistan is invaded in 2001. *Iraq is accused of having weapons of mass destruction. *Iraq is invaded in 2003. *Several high-ranking political officials come upon the CIA-analyst's incriminating evidence, and publicly accuse the Bush Administration of staging a false flag operation. *Congress Democrats propose the impeachment of George W. Bush and several of his cabinet members. **The motion fails through the majority Republican Senate. *In an unprecedented move, the Supreme Court declares outside of trial that George Bush is guilty of treason. The Supreme Court cannot legally have the President removed from office unless he is found guilty during trial and impeached. They direct the Senate Master At Arms to have the President arrested, however the Senate overrules the order. Supreme Court Police are subsequently dispatched to the White House and several other department headquarters to make the arrests. Secret Service and Capitol Police arrest them, and the detention of the entire Supreme Court panel is ordered by President Bush himself. *Outrage spreads across the country between at least three groups of people: people outraged at the President's treason against his country and the court (mostly the 9/11 Truth Movement); people outraged at the Supreme Court's unconstitutional action to have the President arrested outside of impeachment; and people outraged that the President could be accused of attacking his own country (mostly American conservatives). *The Democratic faction of Congress and the federal government continues to accuse the Republican government of treason, and several more attempts, this time across the country, are launched at bringing them to justice. *Widespread riots and protests break out in major cities, as well as counter-protests by a group identifying as "the President's Patriots." *The 9/11 Truth Movement gains so much support that the protests grow in size and are widely encouraged and supported by Democrats and Republicans alike throughout the country. *The President declares a state of emergency and has all Congressmembers "encouraging or inciting violent riots" for sedition and some for treason. *The President deploys the National Guard into high riot areas and declares martial law and a curfew. State governments are outraged and several even attempt to have the President's orders declared null and void via state legislatures. *The West Virginia Legislature passes a bill detailing the following: :: **The West Virginia National Guard is successfully defederalized and begins arresting federal employees enforcing the martial law. *President Bush orders regular Army paratroopers into West Virginia to protect federal employees from the state milita, thus violating the Posse Comitatus Act. *What is expected to be a peaceful surrender on the part of the WV National Guard turns into a bloodbath on both sides as Army Airborne troops and Guardsmen fight in the streets of Charleston. Over 500 total are dead at the end of the first day. *Certain elements of the state government of West Virginia is removed from Charleston, relocating to Weston and declaring the Republic of Appalachia on May 9th 2004 as an independent nation, setting off several movements in other states of the consideration of secession. *Outrage across the country: very few neutral citizens are left. Two groups are now clearly out in the streets: those supporting the removal of the Bush Administration and them being brought to justice; and those who do not believe the Bush Administration has committed any offence. *The battles in West Virginia continue for a week before the Army Airborne is pushed out of Charleston by the Appalachian (Weston) Mountaineer Company. *The Maryland, Virginia and Delaware governments unite their state loyalist National Guard divisions and deploy them into Washington D.C., to detain any officials suspected in the 9/11 cover-up. Some 15,000 troops march on the capital. *President Bush moves several navy warships into the Potomac River and start shelling and hitting the advancing troops with guided missiles. The Military District of Washington (MDW) deploys a defense force. *The Battle of Washington D.C. (FW) occurs over three days, with the MDW successfully repelling the state attack. *Large portions of the regular US armed forces are deployed across the country. *The Second America Civil War (2005-2007) begins. *Several (most) states threaten and do secede from the Union. ___________________________________ *ALL NEW NORTH AMERICAN NATIONS MUST BE DECLARED AFTER 1 JANUARY 2005 Votes DO NOT VOTE UNTIL THE FINAL PRODUCT HAS BEEN RELEASED. I WILL REMOVE THIS PIECE OF CHAT AND TELL YOU TO VOTE WHEN IT'S TIME TO VOTE. -Signed by Warmonkey (talk • ) 23:44, January 14, 2013 (UTC) Alliances I am thinking of limiting military alliances to actual player countries, and not blanks. It has been abused and has been a major cause of controversy in the past and I find this proposal to be fair. What do you guys think? -Signed by Warmonkey (talk • ) 14:00, January 24, 2013 (UTC) Sounds like a plan. The whole "you can't be friends with them but we can because we said so" didn't make a lick of sense. So I'm all for it. Vivaporius says: "I don't need a slogan!" 15:54, January 24, 2013 (UTC) While I agree with this for the most part, shouldn't we allow organizations that are based off of IRL ones be as they are? What I mean is, if China (player country) invaded Vietnam (non-player country) then wouldn't the Great Southeast Military Alliance (Other Southeast Asian countries spearheaded by player Indonesia) be able to react with its respective blanks? Maybe the limit should be excluded if blanks with similar ideologies/historical IRL friendships exist. Maybe players who start these alliances should hold a vote with all players who need to care about the effected blanks before they create the alliance. Example; China wants to form an alliance with blank Mongolia and blank Vietnam. Player controlled Russia and Player controlled Thailand would have to allow Chinese player OOC because they border/have agreements with the effected countries, and player controlled Bulgaria doesn't get a say because Bulgaria has no major relationship with Vietnam. (ᵒᴥᵒ) MineCraftian (Talk) (Duestchland - Texas - Sagesse - Oil City - Skandinavia) (ᵒᴥᵒ) 21:36, January 24, 2013 (UTC) My plan is to only restrict new player-made alliances, like PAFF or the Stratocratic Coalition. Stuff like the UN, NATO, will continue with its normal members. The vote idea can also work, but I fear the low activity on Future World will perhaps lead to stuff going through the cracks. The thing is, I don't want a new South American country to pop up, and it's the only one on the continent, and all of a sudden the player makes that the other blank nations of the continent enter into a strict military alliance, leading to an unstoppable military machine. -Signed by Warmonkey (talk • ) 21:51, January 24, 2013 (UTC) Well yeah, but its not like new alliances are formed IRL in just three days. And with the one continent thing, countries that have real military power are usually tied in with the concept of regional powers. How about we use the regional vote thing for passport unions, economic associations, free trade agreements, etc., and we have a public worldwide OOC vote on military alliances to insure nothing like the OIS or PAFF shows up at random with unstoppable power like they did. So regional player votes for non-military alliances, and worldwide player votes for military alliances. (ᵒᴥᵒ) MineCraftian (Talk) (Duestchland - Texas - Sagesse - Oil City - Skandinavia) (ᵒᴥᵒ) 22:06, January 24, 2013 (UTC) Sounds good, but if there's a too small voter turnout, some more dictoral measures must be taken. -Signed by Warmonkey (talk • ) 22:18, January 24, 2013 (UTC) Sounds like a plan. Though I do agree with MC's EU-like agreements. May help drive player growth in those regions. Vivaporius says: "I don't need a slogan!" 22:57, January 24, 2013 (UTC) Breaking Capitalism Okay I was fine with one mega-corporation, and I was really not in favour of having two; but now three? This is starting to get out of hand. (ᵒᴥᵒ) MineCraftian (Talk) (ᵒᴥᵒ) 19:08, February 3, 2013 (UTC) What's the third one? And for mine, I'll fix mine . Enclavehunter (talk) 19:17, February 3, 2013 (UTC) #Pravus International #Saxxon Energy #Wells Fargo I'm not saying change has to come, its just that expecting the global markets to actually function with three megacorporations owning like half of the globe wouldn't do much good for justified, productive capitalism. In fact, I wouldn't even call that capitalism. Aristocratic corporatism. (ᵒᴥᵒ) MineCraftian (Talk) (ᵒᴥᵒ) 19:31, February 3, 2013 (UTC) Oh. I see, I see. I scaled mine back, and decided to focus on the North American financial sector. And I don't believe Pravus is part of FW. Enclavehunter (talk) 19:38, February 3, 2013 (UTC) I have to agree with MC. Perhaps you guys should ask permission and we'll vote on it when you're planning to take over a large corporation or something similar. -Signed by Warmonkey (talk • ) 20:35, February 3, 2013 (UTC) I agree to that. Should I remove anything from my current company? Enclavehunter (talk) 21:34, February 3, 2013 (UTC) Actually Enclave, I planned on Pravus taking the place as a nation, but with some twists. Difficult concept to explain, but it works in my head to a degree. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 22:01, February 3, 2013 (UTC) Name changes Guys, please don't make a habit of changing your countries' names, especially if you have been admitted to FW. It's quite disruptive and there's absolutely no way for it to take place ICly. -Signed by Warmonkey (talk • ) 12:39, March 28, 2013 (UTC) I just changed it because I confused myself on how Wessex's government worked, so I simplified it. Falloutfan08 (talk) 12:42, March 28, 2013 (UTC) Cleaning and otherwise Has the cleaning of Future World been completed? Has North America been settled yet? I've been apprehensive about adding anything while everything's been so shaky and fluid. Woogers - talk ( ) 21:44, March 31, 2013 (UTC) Things are pretty much organized now. But obviously FW will never be "completed." -Signed by Warmonkey (talk • ) 22:07, March 31, 2013 (UTC) Of course, I'm rather talking about the cleaning effort that seems to have been kicked into high gear today, and the whole splitting up of the West that's been ongoing for a few months now. Woogers - talk ( ) 00:22, April 1, 2013 (UTC) Is FW up and running at the moment then? --Falloutfan08 (talk) 18:48, April 2, 2013 (UTC) Of course. It's been running all along. Information changes throughout, and obviously, admin-approved history added during that time overrules any prior history. -Signed by Warmonkey (talk • ) 16:46, April 3, 2013 (UTC) Please note Enclavehunter and Sunkist's little stunt isn't an invitation for an annexationathon. Things continue as usual, with players not just taking what they want. -Signed by Warmonkey (talk • ) 22:33, May 15, 2013 (UTC) A stunt that you gave your consent too, atleast that's what Sunkist told me. Enclavehunter (talk) 23:02, May 15, 2013 (UTC) Sunkist is obviously lying in that case. -Signed by Warmonkey (talk • ) 23:03, May 15, 2013 (UTC) Lying? You said we could do anything we wanted to do if it wasn't 'retarded' or if the situation came to a point where we needed Admin supervision over the war. ---Sunkist- (talk) 23:06, May 15, 2013 (UTC) I believe, at our discussion when you were creating Columbia, I stated that Columbia size could not increase. However, given that I was retarded enough not to keep record of such a statement, I am willing to let this slide. -Signed by Warmonkey (talk • ) 23:09, May 15, 2013 (UTC) Removal of Columbia Lets just remove Columbia from the timeline, we are not that far into the game where we have to base everything over a poorly written country, its taken over too much land and too much power for the quality that it was. *Removal of Columbia (YES) **-Sunkist- (talk) 00:12, May 19, 2013 (UTC) **Enclavehunter (talk) 00:29, May 19, 2013 (UTC) *Keep Columbia (NO) -Sunkist- (talk) 00:12, May 19, 2013 (UTC) But let's be clear on something: you don't vote to violate FW rules. As admin, I call votes if I deem it necessary for the stability or good of the game. As it is a relatively strict rule to disallow history from being undone, I don't want to see a lot of these rogue votes popping up. But I will allow this. -Signed by Warmonkey (talk • ) 00:25, May 19, 2013 (UTC) : Yes, undoing history is against the rules, should of remebered that when you undid Columbia's annexation of the Southwest, the rules only apply when you apply them Super. -Sunkist- (talk) 00:29, May 19, 2013 (UTC) : In laymen's terms: rules don't apply to dictators. In context, I can violate the rules because I run the game and need to keep the game's stability and future in mind. I violate rules to the benefit of some and to the disadvantage of others depending on the situation. We don't have a thousand players in Future World so we can have an executive, legislature and judiciary; this is how it is and as I have said before, I do what I do in the interest of the game, and if you're not happy, leave. -Signed by Warmonkey (talk • ) 00:34, May 19, 2013 (UTC) ::: I am leaving. ---Sunkist- (talk) 00:35, May 19, 2013 (UTC) Reminder Guys, if I promise to do something at some point, please remind me nearer to the time or the day beforehand if it is of particular importance to you. With university ('college'), I have started to notice that I am forgetting things very quickly, very easily. Please also bear with me if I start a rant at you for something you're doing which I granted permission for; and I apologize for that in advance. -Signed by Warmonkey (talk • ) 19:28, May 20, 2013 (UTC) Since the territory for my FW nation is already claimed and the owner is inactive, I'm going to try making a new country called the Republic of Northern California. It might be ready this week.